Evidently Tolkien allowed his voice to be recorded and I remember seeing some films made of him speaking. He permitted some technology even though he didn’t like it very much. C. S. Lewis spoke in radio broadcasts of Mere Christianity, which used the technology of his time. Both of them probably considered the modern inventions to be just a means to an end. It isn’t possible to be a complete medievalist, although sometimes I think we have allowed the cell phones and computers to dominate our lives, which is something that Tolkien would have vehemently opposed.  I wonder if both Lewis and Tolkien could have lived in our present world with all of its modernism. It would have been hard for them to survive. However, it does seem like they were at least partly right in their old fashioned thinking.

I find it very telling that the Rings of Power trailer came out several days ago and not a single person has mentioned it on here. Sorry to be the first.  

Well, I'll simply say this. There was absolutely nothing about the story in the trailer. It was just B-roll fantasy fare footage. Unless they pull something out that actually looks good, I'll be passing on this TV series. 

You summed it up well, fantasia. The other telling issue is that, of the ten so far officially confirmed/named characters, only three are from Tolkien's work! The rest are made up for the show. There must be more Tolkien characters, so why the focus on their inserted characters? Doesn't bode well.

Everyone is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong because I'm going by memory here, but I believe that the filmmakers had the rights to Lord of the Rings, but NOT to The Silmarillion. So everything in the LotR appendices is fair game, but they can't pull anything from Sil without violating copyrights or whatever. 

Posted by: @adeona

The other telling issue is that, of the ten so far officially confirmed/named characters, only three are from Tolkien's work!

I did go take a look at IMDb. So far they have Galadriel, Elrond, Gil-galad, Isildur, Celebrimbor, that I know are from the book. Prince Durin IV, Halbrand, I THINK are from the book, though I can't place them. And I feel like Bronwyn may also be from the book? Not sure. But there are definitely more than three. I count all of five  

@fantasia I'd got a bit distanced from it all (although I am still in the Amazon LOTR group on FB) partly because I got bored with it, and partly because I don't know the characters and events well enough. But it seems likely that it won't matter, because they are inventing plenty of them anyway!

Posted by: @fantasia
I did go take a look at IMDb. So far they have Galadriel, Elrond, Gil-galad, Isildur, Celebrimbor, that I know are from the book. Prince Durin IV, Halbrand, I THINK are from the book, though I can't place them. And I feel like Bronwyn may also be from the book? Not sure. But there are definitely more than three. I count all of five  

Halbarad is a Ranger in the books, but Halbrand is a new character. Bronwyn is another made-up character - at least, there may ? be someone with that name but not remotely as she's being described for the show. I didn't know Isildur and Celebrimbor had been confirmed (they've not been named on the official social media but I think I did see Isildur's name in an article now that you mention it), so that does help the numbers a little. Accepting Durin IV (it is hard to keep track of all the Durins so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt haha) that does bring us to 6 real Tolkien characters, out of 12 confirmed names.

Posted by: @adeona

Bronwyn is another made-up character - at least, there may ? be someone with that name but not remotely as she's being described for the show.

Bronwyn is a straight-up Welsh name from our world (it's literally "white breast"), and while the Sindarin language is based on Welsh — and as a Welsh learner, whenever I encounter Sindarin words I find my brain instinctively trying to parse them as Welsh, which does my head in a bit — I can't think of any instances where Tolkien borrowed actual Welsh names or words and used them for his characters. That would have been totally inconsistent with his ethos of creating the languages of Middle-earth. I suspect some script-writer was trying to come up with a new female character and wanted a "Tolkienesque" / "Elvish"-sounding name and decided that "Bronwyn" would fit well enough.

I hope I'm not the only Tolkien fan who won't be touching this Amazon series with a bargepole (I took the same attitude to The Hobbit being turned into a film trilogy)...  

Yesterday I met a young woman who is very tall indeed. I asked her if she'd ever gone to casting calls for size doubles, and she told me she was in The Hobbit. She was the size double for Tauriel!  She met Evangeline, and also Aiden Turner. 

When I asked, she said she had met Paul, aka 'Tall Paul', who doubles for various taller people beside hobbits or dwarves. (He is one of the Tall section people listed in the agency I am in for short people)

So far I've really only had two positive thoughts about The Rings of Power: 1. The costumes look okay (although nowhere near as impressive as Amazon's other big fantasy show, Wheel of Time). 2. It still sounds like a better show than whatever Terry Pratchett's Watch series was turned into. My bar is really low.  

Posted by: @fantasia

Everyone is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong because I'm going by memory here, but I believe that the filmmakers had the rights to Lord of the Rings, but NOT to The Silmarillion. So everything in the LotR appendices is fair game, but they can't pull anything from Sil without violating copyrights or whatever.

Correct as far as I remember. I guess I'm going to need to reread both Sil and LotR to get a better idea of what they're working with.

Posted by: @adeona

Accepting Durin IV (it is hard to keep track of all the Durins so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt haha)

I had to go pull out my copy because I wasn't sure, but there are 7 Durins. Durin VI is the one slain by the Balrog and also grandfather of Thrain I. So Durin IV absolutely does exist, but I don't think there is actually anything written about him in the appendices.

I wasn't excited for this show to begin with, but pretty much every piece of marketing has disappointed me. The ultimate disappointment was of course the Vanity Fair article.

The driving question behind the production, he adds, was this: “Can we come up with the novel Tolkien never wrote and do it as the mega-event series that could only happen now?”

That phrasing sure sounds familiar . . .

I think I read somewhere that Tolkien had wanted The Lord of the Rings to be published as one book. Now the book is often sold as a one volume edition, but decades ago book stores would promote it in three volumes.  I wonder why the publishers wanted it sold that way.  Perhaps they thought that one volume was too long at about 1200 pages.  The book is often promoted as a trilogy, which suggests three stories, although Tolkien apparently considered it to be one great adventure. Tolkien may not have liked his story to be split into three volumes, although he consented to it when the books were published.  I understand why it was necessary for the completion of the movies to have them released with the titles The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King.  Tolkien probably was not so fond of movies, but he may have accepted them if he were living today (along with their titles).

@narnian78 I personally can't manage to hold a book that big these days. A smaller book is also easier to carry in a bag, to read on a bus or train. 

@coracle 

The three volume edition is not too difficult to find, and I think you can still get them in the larger paperbacks for easy reading. My paperback edition is one volume, but it has small but readable print. It was inexpensive to buy and I think it is still available at most bookstores.  I would probably prefer it over three books since it takes up less space on my bookshelf.  But I have seen some beautiful three volume editions, and I can understand how some people like them if they prefer smaller books with large print.

Posted by: @dot

The ultimate disappointment was of course the Vanity Fair article.

The driving question behind the production, he adds, was this: “Can we come up with the novel Tolkien never wrote and do it as the mega-event series that could only happen now?”

That phrasing sure sounds familiar . . .

That statement right there is enough to make me worried, especially in combination with the promo image and the "extra" characters. The last time that phrase was used ( ), the movie turned out to be both a flop and a huge disappointment. I definitely don't have high expectations for the Amazon adaptation.

Why do these filmmakers feel the need to try to write the novel/book the author never wrote? I don't think there is a lack of material as far as Middle Earth or even Narnia is concerned.... And if their concern is that modern audiences might be bored with the adaptation, why are they adapting it in the first place?  

While I do appreciate and enjoy the LotR film trilogy and the Hobbit film trilogy, I definitely wish that they had been closer to the books. I had been looking forward to Bilbo singing his little spider song (I can't watch the spider scenes, but I at least want to hear that). And, lately, adaptations have been becoming very far removed from the books themselves in various ways. I cringe at the historical inaccuracies that have been popping up lately.

I hope that I'm just being pessimistic and that maybe the adaptation will turn out to be better than expected.

Posted by: @narnian78

I would probably prefer it over three books since it takes up less space on my bookshelf.  

I can see what you mean. *looks at bookshelf overflowing with books* I have the three-volume set along with the Hobbit in the small "leatherette"-bound version, but they are pretty small, and I love the feel of the covers.

~ Wunder

Posted by: @wunderkind_lucy

Why do these filmmakers feel the need to try to write the novel/book the author never wrote?

Posted by: @narnian78

I would probably prefer it over three books since it takes up less space on my bookshelf.  

I can see what you mean. *looks at bookshelf overflowing with books* I have the three-volume set along with the Hobbit in the small "leatherette"-bound version, but they are pretty small, and I love the feel of the covers.

~ Wunder

I would think that the reason why they have to write their own book, is that apart from LotR, which has been adapted already, they don't own the rights to use anything else that he wrote. They cannot use Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales - so they invent new stories in between, stories that Tolkien never wrote.

I've read that there was still (after the wartime) a lack of paper for book printing when LotR was published (in the 1950s), so they had to split the text over some volumes. Tolkien actually presents his work in 6 books, so two and two went into their own volume, making three in all. I think I've seen a relatively recent paperback set with seven volumes, the 6 books separately and the Appendices as volume 7.

@varna I've seen a set like that but haven't been able to purchase one. I really like the idea of each book being its own volume!